My argument with you stems from your own words - "they are in the minority." That means at least some of these women are making false accusations. That's the problem. Which ones? Which people accused are the ones who really did something wrong and should have their reputations and careers destroyed as a result?

Which ones are making false accusations and which ones are telling the truth?

The ones the juries all around the world are convicting, based on the stories told in court. They have decided the stories are true, beyond reasonable doubt, and do their job accordingly. They are the ones tasked with deciding what is convincing and what isn't. That's how our system works.

We never get to hear the evidence produced in court. However, when a high -profile person is accused the media sits there every day and listens in. I can't recall a case where the media, having heard the evidence, has accused the jury of getting it wrong. This is despite the total lack of witnesses appearing for the prosecution, as well as the absence of any photographic proof.

In these cases the cross-examination by the prosecutor is brutal, especially so as the stakes are so high and people's careers, marriages, etc are on the line. It's not a case of "He did it" versus "No, he didn't."

Yet these women get through it and get to see justice done.

And the false accusers are quickly weeded out.

Is there a 100% guarantee that an innocent person is not convicted of sexual assault - or any other crime for that matter?

Of course, not. But we have to live with the justice system we have and accept that, like many other things, it is not always perfect.

firecat69 wrote:You cannot have it both ways. Well you can but it is intellectually dishonest.

I have it only one way. You keep going back to Trump. You say I have no proof. That's right, I don't. I've also said, several times, that I'm not looking for proof. I'm looking for evidence. In Trump's case I believe there is ample evidence for me to believe those accusing him.

Regarding these women, other than the accusations, is there any evidence? If there is, I missed it.

With regard to the Moore and Franken cases, two women have appeared on camera to recount their stories. Both have pretty harrowing tales to tell and both have broken down in front of the cameras. To those who do not believe these women, I ask this. Facing world scrutiny (i.e. knowing that tens if not hundreds of millions are probably tuned in watching you), facing the parents whom you could not tell decades ago, your spouses, your children, your extended families - seriously, could you look at a camera and tell that story to the world in very considerable detail during which you break down in tears? Yes, an actor could probably do it. One of the women has a TV show and so perhaps - just perhaps - she could fake it. But a woman who has been hiding the truth for decades and it is all but dragged from her lips before the world could never do that on cue, not even with months of acting lessons!

I believe both. And I believe a jury seeing them on the witness stand would also find they were speaking the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

And what of the accused? In these two cases one has owned up and submitted himself to the Senate Ethics procedures. The other, the despicable Roy Moore, merely condemns these women and talks about his character. But, and it is a big but, not one word about why he was banned from a mall for preying on teenage girls. Is that not evidence? I believe so. Not one word about the phone call to the school, other than it never happened. The fact that the call happened has, I believe, been confirmed by the young lady's classmates. Are they all lying? I do not believe so. Why is his wife giving the media conferences now - but the media is not permitted to ask any questions? Why therefore bother with a media event? She could just issue a release and save everyone a lot of time and effort. All this is no doubt circumstantial evidence to some eyes. Fine. But to me it lays the groundwork for a case against Moore.

I also believe we should not lightly dismiss the increasing number of media reports. Serious journalism did not die with Watergate. I commend everyone to watch Meryl Streep's comments when she addressed the International Press Freedom Awards three days ago. Skip the beginning and start at 2'20".

I get groped every night i go to Jomtien Complex and i hope it continues. On a serious note i think the accusations are ruining many lives and the careers of the persons accused are finished whether the accusations are proven or not.

It has started in Australia now with John Jarratt the lead actor in the Wolf Creek movie series accused of rape sometime in the 1970's. I don't know if there is a solution but it seems to be getting out of control.

I think some of us are guilty of some false equivalency. Contrasting Moore and Franken...they are cases worlds apart. Franken exploited a woman in a sorry attempt at humor. It was a one time thing and he has apologized for his lack of judgement and the woman has accepted his apology and stated that she thinks that should be the end of the matter. Moore, on the other hand, is accused of nine plus cases of molestation - some underaged girls - and denies any of it has ever happened. These cases are not equivalent, to me.

I agree those 2 cases are not even close to the same . But I fail to see anyone who has been hurt by this speaking out except the people who are speaking out. These are the people who have been hurt. It was the same BS the Catholic Church spread when they denied their priests were abusing boys.

Recently most have slinked away and a few like Trump and Weinstein fail to admit that they are pigs. I see no one who does not deserve the scrutiny they are getting.

Wild Bill Clinton should thank his lucky stars he was a Pig 25 years ago when many people were failed to be believed when they spoke out.

Let me know when someone proves they have been wrongly accused of these type of attacks.

firecat69 wrote:Let me know when someone proves they have been wrongly accused of these type of attacks.

What springs immediately to mind is the notorious McMartin case, in which the entire school was falsely accused and many lives were ruined. The problem, of course, is that false accusations are seldom deemed newsworthy and proving a negative is impossible.

For me it comes down to credibility. When dozens of people say that someone did something to them then I reckon the chances are that it did happen. A single person going to the media, all dolled up looking like they're loving the attention then I'd be reluctant to condemn the accused until I heard or saw some kind of evidence. A single person who informed the authorities way back when it happened and now saying it did occur but their pleas were ignored at the time, I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt but would still like to hear some evidence.